Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Scientists Abandoning Evolution?
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 1 of 82 (67449)
11-18-2003 3:18 PM


Rei writes:
keith63 writes:
What I really want is that kids will be taught that there is a controversy about this topic. If there was not a controversy then we wouldnt be having this discussion. I can provide hundreds of scientists working at major universities who have problems with Darwinian evolution.
Yes. But how many Steves do you have?
keith63 writes:
Sounds like a fancy way of avoiding the issue. I would like to know how this is considered a bogus list. I have read many of these books and I think these scientists are working at major universities. Dr. David Menton works in St. Louis at Washington University in their Anatomy department. One of my colleagues had him as an instructor. I still don't know why evolutionists seem to be so scared of intelligent design? They always attempt to prevent it from being mentioned in the classroom.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-18-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by helena, posted 11-18-2003 3:26 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 3 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 3:32 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2003 3:41 PM Rei has not replied

  
helena 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5845 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 03-27-2008


Message 2 of 82 (67453)
11-18-2003 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
11-18-2003 3:18 PM


Not necessarily on topic, but here it goes:
Just because scientists make remarks about current problems in their respective field and about how certain findings are in disagreement with current theories doesn't necessarily mean they are ready to adopt a completely different scientific or faith based approach.
You will very often be able to quote a scientist in a way that seems to be totally deprecative of his field. It is something very human not to think about the implications something you say has to people less involved in a field. I have found myself demotivating students by making remarks about my particular field of expertise, yet I continue to work in the same direction ..
hope this made some sense

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 3:18 PM Rei has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 3 of 82 (67457)
11-18-2003 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
11-18-2003 3:18 PM


Pick any random sample of them, and I'll show you that they exist and get you their email addresses and/or phone numbers so you can confirm it. I'll go ahead and check the latest Steve to join - according to the Steve-O-Meter, it's Stephen R. Hahn, of Fermilab (#404).
Well, here's a page that mentions him as part of an organizing committee at Fermilab:
http://ppd.fnal.gov/conferences/susy99/
The "Dogs" reference is to a band that he's in, composed of Fermilab geeks:
http://ppd.fnal.gov/conferences/susy99/dogs.html
He's a contact person under "Electrical Power" concerning the collider detector at Fermilab:
Select Authentication System (Phone number: 851-1268 (sorry, no area code!))
Ah, here's his email:
Re: BBedit Tidy plug-in from Terry Teague on 2000-07-08 (html-tidy@w3.org from July to September 2000) (hahn@fnal.gov) - drop him a line!
Again, if you have any doubts about this list's legitimacy, by all means, I'll get you contact info.
And, given that "Steves" that qualify to be on the list are about 1% of the US population, that means that this list represents about 40,400 scientists. Of course, it's anything but exhaustive - but I'm sure it dwarfs whatever list you're looking at.
Creationists compose between a third and half of the US population, and yet only a tiny fraction of the scientific community (at best, a few percent) (anyone have any exact statistics here? It's been a while, and I don't have time to track down the latest survey results). This should tell you something.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 3:18 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 11-18-2003 6:38 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 60 by joshua221, posted 05-30-2005 10:18 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 82 by RickJB, posted 05-15-2006 3:26 AM Rei has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 82 (67462)
11-18-2003 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
11-18-2003 3:18 PM


NOTE:
This discussion stems from keith63 quoting scientists that are underwhelmed by the number of transitional fossils found in the record.
What matters most in science is not what prominant scientists think but rather what the evidence shows. What makes things even worse is that quotes from prominent scientists are ofen taken out of context or outdated.
So, to get to the evidence, the main contention was that creation theory predicts organisms to appear suddenly in the fossil record being that they were created without a common ancestor and subsequent evolution. Although there are admittedly many gaps in the fossil record, we still don't see current species or recent species intermingling with the earliest species (whales with trilobites for example). This is what we would expect if a catastrophic incident (Noah's flood) occured as a literal reading of the Bible would indicate. Instead we see a steady, progressive movement of organisms into the current taxonomy we see today. Some professor at WashU is not going to change this fact.
As to intelligent design, show me evidence of a supernatural diety creating physical changes in our universe and you would have an argument. So far, intelligent design is a god of the gaps theory, limited to what we have yet to explain fully. It relies on inferrence without evidence and incredulity based on undefined probabilities. Evolutionists are not scared of design theory, we just don't want unsupported theories to be treated as equals in science classrooms with theories based in evidence. As soon as you can physically test through methodological naturalism (the only method we have that has worked in science) the presence of a creator diety we can talk about equal treatment of the two theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 3:18 PM Rei has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 82 (67523)
11-18-2003 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rei
11-18-2003 3:32 PM


quote:
Creationists compose between a third and half of the US population, and yet only a tiny fraction of the scientific community (at best, a few percent) (anyone have any exact statistics here? It's been a while, and I don't have time to track down the latest survey results). This should tell you something.
It's actually a tiny fraction of a single percent:
Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation
According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rei, posted 11-18-2003 3:32 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by MrHambre, posted 11-24-2003 2:18 PM nator has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 6 of 82 (68993)
11-24-2003 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by nator
11-18-2003 6:38 PM


The Not-So-Sinking Ship
The Discovery Institute certainly makes it seem like scientists are abandoning evolution in droves, though I can't find any statistics at their website concerning this revolution. They did list a hundred scientists, at least some of whom appear to be biologists, who have gone on record as supporting the following statement: "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Does the DI want people to think that careful examination has not been encouraged? This sounds like the rhetorical tactic of rebutting an argument that was never made in the first place: "I don't care what the scientific dogma says, the sun does rise in the East!!"
Admittedly, James Shapiro is a maverick biologist, but during his online interview by the fellows, he flatly denies there is any design or 'front-loading' involved in his theory of mobile genetic elements. So much for getting a real scientist to support IDC.
ARN has an article wherein fifty-two Ohio scientists have gone on record espousing no stronger support for Intelligent Design Creationism than these statements:
quote:
We Affirm:
That biological evolution is an important scientific theory that should be taught in the classroom;
That a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science;
That a science curriculum should help students understand why the subject of biological evolution generates controversy;
That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them;
That a science curriculum should encourage critical thinking and informed participation in public discussions about biological origins.
We Oppose:
Religious or anti-religious indoctrination in a class specifically dedicated to teaching within the discipline of science;
The censorship of scientific views that may challenge current theories of origins.
That doesn't sound like the edifice of Naturalism crumbling to me.
Incidentally, the membership directory of the American Institute of Biological Sciences lists 241,946 biologists.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 11-18-2003 6:38 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by JonF, posted 11-24-2003 2:41 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 8 by nator, posted 11-24-2003 3:44 PM MrHambre has replied
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2003 5:25 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 7 of 82 (68997)
11-24-2003 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MrHambre
11-24-2003 2:18 PM


Re: The Not-So-Sinking Ship
They did list a hundred scientists, at least some of whom appear to be biologists, who have gone on record as supporting the following statement: "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
It's probably worth pointing out that lots of qualified scientists question the ability of random mutation and natural selection alone to account for the complexity of life, wanting to include such processes as genetic drift, sexual selection, and what-not. IIRC some of the scientists who signed that document explicitly said things to that effect when interviewed abut why they signed, but I can't find any references right now.
An, of course, creationists have been claiming that scientists are abandoning evolution in droves for some time now: The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MrHambre, posted 11-24-2003 2:18 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 82 (69005)
11-24-2003 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MrHambre
11-24-2003 2:18 PM


Re: The Not-So-Sinking Ship
quote:
That where alternative scientific theories exist in any area of inquiry (such as wave vs. particle theories of light, biological evolution vs. intelligent design, etc.), students should be permitted to learn the evidence for and against them;
...except that "Intelligent Design" isn't actually a scientific theory.
It is a philosophical position. However, the rest is great.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MrHambre, posted 11-24-2003 2:18 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by MrHambre, posted 11-24-2003 4:30 PM nator has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 82 (69015)
11-24-2003 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
11-24-2003 3:44 PM


Preaching to the Choir
Schraf,
That's exactly my point. Scientists have produced constructive results on both sides of the wave vs. particle issue. However, creationism has no worthwhile research to show for itself.
The difference isn't just philosophical. Evolution by natural selection is a comprehensive framework that unifies research in several different disciplines and proposes natural mechanisms and consistent timelines for its bases. Darwin's theory has seen its predictions borne out by advances in paleontology, molecular biology, and genetics. This methodology is sufficient to contextualize and explain the vast majority of the data available from these and other fields.
Creationism is an exclusive patchwork of isolated factoids from various sources, relying most heavily on the authority of Holy Scripture. Its mechanisms are undetectable and untestable, and its timelines are inconsistent when articulated at all. It has never guided worthwhile research or proposed verifiable predictions. It purports to explain (the term is arguable) only a fraction of the available data from astronomy, geology, population studies, genetics, etc., ignoring without comment the vast majority of existing research.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 11-24-2003 3:44 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 11-25-2003 3:34 AM MrHambre has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 10 of 82 (69036)
11-24-2003 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MrHambre
11-24-2003 2:18 PM


Re: The Not-So-Sinking Ship
MrHambre writes:
quote:
The Discovery Institute certainly makes it seem like scientists are abandoning evolution in droves, though I can't find any statistics at their website concerning this revolution. They did list a hundred scientists, at least some of whom appear to be biologists, who have gone on record as supporting the following statement: "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Well, here's some reporting done by the National Center for Science Education that specifically deals with that list and the advertisements the DI made in some newspapers regarding it:
Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License
First problem: The DI ad claimed that the PBS mini-series, evolution, made the following claim:
"all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution"
Actually, this is two problems. First, notice the insertion of the word "Darwinian" there. Why would the DI do this? Second, this statement never appears anywhere in evolution. However, an internal memorandum to various PBS stations regarding the program contains that sentence without the word "Darwinian" in it.
As everyone here knows, the theory of evolution is not Darwinian. The work of Darwin is over 150 years old and many of the things he claimed have since been shown to be inaccurate. However, the basic premise of evolution that Darwin gleaned remains and it is often called "Neo-Darwinian."
Second, the statement says this:
We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
Does this mean that somebody who agrees with it thinks that evolution is bunkum? Or might it mean that the person thinks that there is more to evolution than simply mutation and natural selection? Things like genetic drift, perhaps?
Third, of the 105 people on the list, they broke down as follows:
41 biologists (half biochemists)
16 chemists
15 physicists/astronomers
10 medical professionals
8 mathematicians
4 engineers
4 social scientists
3 unknown field
2 geologists/geophysicists
Stephen Myer (President of Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the creationist branch of the DI, PhD in Philosophy)
Paul Nelson (Fellow of above CRSC, PhD in Philosophy)
So, the NCSE contacted a sample of the people on the list and asked them if the agreed with
"evidence for common ancestry, meaning that different species today shared common ancestors in the past," and whether or not they were convinced "that humans and chimps both share a common ancestor."
While people like David A. Dewitt, a faculty member at the ICR, certainly answered in the negative, the response from the other people on the list were quite interesting. One said that he didn't have a problem with those statements but pointed out that his "dissent mainly concerns the origin of life." Well, as we all know, evolution is not connected to abiogenesis.
And then there was this response:
Although another signatory responded that "the definition of species is very troublesome," he added that "I certainly do accept that SOME (perhaps most) modern species shared at least a recent common ancestor." On the question of whether chimps and humans share a common ancestor, he said, "I believe the genetic evidence is overwhelming for the morphology."
It would seem that the DI deliberately phrased its question to be somewhat vague and then sent it to people who are trained to deal with subtleties and would respond accordingly.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MrHambre, posted 11-24-2003 2:18 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by randman, posted 05-27-2005 6:22 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 82 (69147)
11-25-2003 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by MrHambre
11-24-2003 4:30 PM


Re: Preaching to the Choir
quote:
Creationism is an exclusive patchwork of isolated factoids from various sources, relying most heavily on the authority of Holy Scripture.
Actually, creationism is a political movement for the most part. And key methods used by most creationists and creationist organizations is to outright lie about the claims evolutionists make, distort what evolutionists say i.e. taking quotes out of context, or make up "factoids" such as the topic of this thread. It is a culture of opposition and not a scientific hypothesis or theory. Thus, creationists never propose a testable and falsifiable hypothesis and when pressed to support their claims, usually turn around and say you have not supported yours (that ususally precedes them telling you that in order for evolution to be true your cat should be able to give birth to a goat...otherwise it is just a cat).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by MrHambre, posted 11-24-2003 4:30 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by MrHambre, posted 11-25-2003 7:21 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 12 of 82 (69161)
11-25-2003 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mammuthus
11-25-2003 3:34 AM


Re: Preaching to the Choir
I was trying to say that a scientific approach should try to be inclusive, attempt to explain all of the available data, and strive for an objectivity that will allow researchers with many different philosophical or cultural backgrounds to engage each other in a coomon, cooperative effort.
Creationism is manifestly exclusive, it ignores almost all available data, it requires its adherents to believe in the most narrow-minded Biblical literalism regardless of its lack of utility, and attacks anyone who doesn't choose to live in the same ridiculous dreamworld.
------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 11-25-2003 3:34 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 82 (69673)
11-28-2003 3:43 AM


Hanns Hrbiger Would Understand
The creationists' methods parallel those of believers in Hanns Hrbiger's Cosmic Ice Theory (Welteislehre or WEL, originally Glazial-Kosmogonie). Between WWI and WWII, they'd apply a lot of pressure to get people to accept their views; they'd heckle astronomers' meetings, shouting
"Out with astronomical orthodoxy! Give us Hrbiger!"
In the 1930's, the Hrbigerites aligned themselves with Nazism, and the Nazi Party eventually had to state that one could be a good Nazi without believing in the WEL. After the war, their fate has been rather obscure; whatever remaining Hrbigerites there are have yet to set up a WEL website.
Hrbiger himself believed that the only reason that his views were not accepted was that he was not a recognized astrophysicist; he claimed that pictures of the MIlky Way resolved into enormous numbers of stars had been faked by "reactionary" astronomers. And when the numbers did not work out, as was common, he claimed that
"Calculation can only lead you astray!"
a strange attitude for an engineer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Admiral Valdemar, posted 12-16-2003 10:31 AM lpetrich has not replied

  
Admiral Valdemar
Inactive Junior Member


Message 14 of 82 (73313)
12-16-2003 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by lpetrich
11-28-2003 3:43 AM


Re: Hanns Hrbiger Would Understand
So in order to make Creationists disappear for good we need a World War III?
Hmm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by lpetrich, posted 11-28-2003 3:43 AM lpetrich has not replied

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 82 (73653)
12-17-2003 2:45 AM


But the creationists' side would have to suffer a disastrous defeat, as Nazi Germany had done.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Crazy Nut, posted 05-14-2005 10:12 PM lpetrich has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024